-
Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.
*Official* England in Bangladesh Thread
- Thread starter gibbsnsmith
- Start date
gibbsnsmith
State Vice-Captain
who says its the REAL clarke...
Rik
Cricketer Of The Year
He's having a good match, but I wouldn't read too much into it, remember, per batsman, the average with Bangladesh is around 18 runs, and the bowling is 50...Mr. Ponting said:Clarke again! Kapali gone for a quack and Rikki on fire!
What a match hes having.
Oh and even Lehmann took 4for against them...
luckyeddie
Cricket Web Staff Member
Agreed - all we can do is compare performances with his team-mates - and at present, it just seems to be the ideal tour for him to make his debut on because he is out-performing his more illustrious counterparts with bat and ball.Rik said:
I'm beginning to look upon him as a 'good prospect' - he seems to be a fast learner.
Rik
Cricketer Of The Year
Yeah but I'm not really taking anything from anyone this series, it's just pointless. I really doubt Harmison will take anywhere near as many wickets in Sri Lanka and Clarke will definately not find it this easy.luckyeddie said:
The Jury is still out because this isn't a Test IMO.
BTW I saw a rather interisting artical on Harmison in TWC. Maybe the world isn't blind after all
luckyeddie
Cricket Web Staff Member
... and so it goes on.Rik said:Yeah but I'm not really taking anything from anyone this series, it's just pointless. I really doubt Harmison will take anywhere near as many wickets in Sri Lanka and Clarke will definately not find it this easy.
The Jury is still out because this isn't a Test IMO.
BTW I saw a rather interisting artical on Harmison in TWC. Maybe the world isn't blind after all
If Bangladesh had taken one more wicket against Pakistan, if Inzy hadn't batted fabulously etc etc - then Pakistan totally outplayed South Africa.
Was the series against Zimbabwe a test series? Because I'm pretty sure that Bangladesh would now kick their asses.
I am only comparing Clarke and Harmison against the ENGLISH players. The fact that other players (ones you possibly prefer, or are they not on the tour?) have under-performed cannot be ignored, 'proper test' or not. They are professionals.
I'm fully in agreement that Harmison will find Sri Lanka an altogether different proposition and that there will be few free gifts - but I am more than willing to wager that Harmison will out-perform the rest of England's seam attack (again).
As far as Clarke is concerned, I very much doubt that he will play in Sri Lanka other than the ODI's - but it will be interesting to see how his replacement (Flintoff) performs with the ball.
Rik
Cricketer Of The Year
I've said all I'll say on Harmison, but I can only remember 2 series he's been the best bowler, and they have been against the 2 weakest teams in the world, co-incidence?luckyeddie said:
I just still have haunting visions of Clarke in the Natwest series, and not just his batting, his bowling petrified me, by how many overs he was entrusted with. Yes his bowling looks like Martin Bicknell but in action only...
As for the others underperforming, oh yes, I forgot 8 wickets at 18.12 in one and barely any of the 2nd, Tests is really appauling from Hoggard...
To be fair there are hardly any England players who have dreadfully underperformed...
Well Butcher has, and Giles, but Batty bowled well without reward, Read hasn't played Tests for 4 years and is only getting back, Nass is gritting it out but his 76 was a fine innings. All the rest are over par or just under, but not by much. It hasn't been a great England performance in this series, but if you look at the returns, it hasn't been amazingly bad either.
Last edited:
luckyeddie
Cricket Web Staff Member
Sourav GangulyRik said:
Damien Martyn (2)
Adam Gilchrist (2)
Matthew Hayden
Herschelle Gibbs (2)
Gary Kirsten (2)
Jacques Kallis
Nope, none of those guys can bat. You win (as always)
luckyeddie
Cricket Web Staff Member
As the drowning man clutches at the final straw, he pleads for someone to throw him a line.Rik said:
Only no-one does.
Give it up, Rik. You are but an army of one - seeing as your (granted, well-constructed) arguments have failed to convince anyone with an open mind, how the hell will you convince me? :P
Rik
Cricketer Of The Year
Strange, I've never seen one person look like so many. Oh yes, it's because they all are different people...with the same opinion. The only people I see defending him on this board is you, Neil and Marc, which I would not count as everyone.luckyeddie said:
As for the open-mind, quite a few people seem to have way-layed theirs.
An open mind-mind gives you the oppertunity to think, "yes maybe I'm wrong", but every time I see the guy play or look at a breakdown of his record, it accounts to a player getting a free ride and performing only against weak opposition in an attack which is weak enough already.
9 Wickets in one Test at 8.77 against Bangladesh who are well known as possibly the worst players of fast bowling in the world.
9 Wickets in 2 Tests at 16.44 against Zimbabwe, who are pretty hopeless too.
9 Wickets at 50.55 in 4 Tests against Australia, who are rather good at playing it.
5 Wickets in 1 Test at 24.00 against India, who aren't the best (Ganguly) but then arn't the worst (Tendulkar, Dravid).
9 Wickets in 4 Tests at 45.88 against South Africa, who happen to be very good against it.
Right so:
3 Matches, 227 runs, 18 Wickets at 12.61 against Zimbabwe and Bangladesh
9 Matches, 988 runs, 23 Wickets at 42.95 against everyone else (India, South Africa, Australia). Oh yes, and this is supposed to include his "Improvement" after the Zimbabwe series, when he averaged 45.88 against South Africa...
Just as Graeme Hick was called a "Flat Track Bully", Steven Harmison is nothing but a "Weak Teams Bully".
Now if that's not well argued then I'll eat my hat. And if that looks like the figures of a player not getting a free-ride and every bit deserving of a place in the team then the term "Open-Minded" must mean something so open it collapses over your eyes and blocks your view.
I rest my case.
Last edited:
luckyeddie
Cricket Web Staff Member
As usual, you are answering your own points very well and totally ignoring mine. You should be a politician. I bet you can kiss a baby and open a supermarket with a straight face too.
I said "He out-performed everyone else in the first test"
You said "He can't get good batsmen out"
I showed you a few good batsmen who he got out (whether through luck or judgment - who knows?) - just to counter the totally irrelevant point which you countered with.
OK, Rik. I'll grant that your arguments are well-constructed (you posted then went back and researched some figures to suit your argument and updated) - but you were just making a point and not countering one. Don't worry, you don't have to eat your hat - Harmison playing test cricket sticks in your throat enough without obstructing your airways any more.
What is it with Harmison? Have you got money on him crashing and burning? I'm not saying that he's better than all the other bowlers in the country - just that he's out-performed everyone (all things considered) in the first test and DESERVEDLY won 'man of the match'. Sure, there may well be better players at home, but that's where they are spending the winter. Live with it, no matter how much it sticks in your craw. I have. 6 months ago, I too thought that he was the worst bowler ever to pull on an England shirt.
You have already admitted elsewhere (in a general Channel 4 moan) that you haven't SEEN any of the matches, therefore you are watching the games on Teletext/Cricinfo. You certainly aren't paying ANY attention to what reporters/observers have had to say regarding the wayward one's performance in the first test - even Mr Grumpy was full of praise. You seem to have made up your mind that Harmison is rubbish, always has been rubbish, always will be rubbish. You may be right, but I was talking about one specific performance.
You quoted Hoggard's stats from the series so far - fair comment. If you are observant, you will notice that Hoggard and Harmison were praised (by me) for 'hunting as a team' not just on these boards but in the match reports (You do read them do you? I try to remain impartial and call it as I see it), pushing themselves in horrendous (for fast bowlers) conditions during the first test.
Same with Clarke - he has obviously surprised the hell out of everyone in the second test so far. Sure, we all had a chuckle over his dozen in 2 hours in the first test, but so far this time he's had a cracking match - fair play to the lad. I wouldn't have picked him in a million years, but he's grabbed his chance with both hands. For someone who made his first-class debut in 2002, I think he's doing all right so far.
I certainly wouldn't play him in the tests in Sri Lanka, but I would definitely give him a start in the ODIs. As for Harmison, I would continue to take it on a game-by-game basis.
I said "He out-performed everyone else in the first test"
You said "He can't get good batsmen out"
I showed you a few good batsmen who he got out (whether through luck or judgment - who knows?) - just to counter the totally irrelevant point which you countered with.
OK, Rik. I'll grant that your arguments are well-constructed (you posted then went back and researched some figures to suit your argument and updated) - but you were just making a point and not countering one. Don't worry, you don't have to eat your hat - Harmison playing test cricket sticks in your throat enough without obstructing your airways any more.
What is it with Harmison? Have you got money on him crashing and burning? I'm not saying that he's better than all the other bowlers in the country - just that he's out-performed everyone (all things considered) in the first test and DESERVEDLY won 'man of the match'. Sure, there may well be better players at home, but that's where they are spending the winter. Live with it, no matter how much it sticks in your craw. I have. 6 months ago, I too thought that he was the worst bowler ever to pull on an England shirt.
You have already admitted elsewhere (in a general Channel 4 moan) that you haven't SEEN any of the matches, therefore you are watching the games on Teletext/Cricinfo. You certainly aren't paying ANY attention to what reporters/observers have had to say regarding the wayward one's performance in the first test - even Mr Grumpy was full of praise. You seem to have made up your mind that Harmison is rubbish, always has been rubbish, always will be rubbish. You may be right, but I was talking about one specific performance.
You quoted Hoggard's stats from the series so far - fair comment. If you are observant, you will notice that Hoggard and Harmison were praised (by me) for 'hunting as a team' not just on these boards but in the match reports (You do read them do you? I try to remain impartial and call it as I see it), pushing themselves in horrendous (for fast bowlers) conditions during the first test.
Same with Clarke - he has obviously surprised the hell out of everyone in the second test so far. Sure, we all had a chuckle over his dozen in 2 hours in the first test, but so far this time he's had a cracking match - fair play to the lad. I wouldn't have picked him in a million years, but he's grabbed his chance with both hands. For someone who made his first-class debut in 2002, I think he's doing all right so far.
I certainly wouldn't play him in the tests in Sri Lanka, but I would definitely give him a start in the ODIs. As for Harmison, I would continue to take it on a game-by-game basis.
Rik
Cricketer Of The Year
I have seen some play, thanks to a friend of mine who managed to tape me as much as he could.
I answered all the things that needed answering, the fact that against weak teams he performs and against strong or average ones he doesn't. If that doesn't tell the whole story then I don't know what does. Harmison in the team annoys me because he's the only player England seem to pick without noticing he's not actually done anything. I will state for the last time I have never and will never decide he's crap whatever, why should I? The only thing that is biased at the moment is his record which is biased towards mediocrety...
As for Clarke, again it's weak opposition, even weaker than in the CC, and he hasn't set the world on fire, but I'm not passing judgement because, as I said before, against the world's weakest team, who can?
Oh and my case, can you see it resting over there? Can you? Just over there by the sink. Damn case *Kicks the case, which gets up on it's many legs and manages to look suitably annoyed without possessing a face*
Amazing things these cases.
I answered all the things that needed answering, the fact that against weak teams he performs and against strong or average ones he doesn't. If that doesn't tell the whole story then I don't know what does. Harmison in the team annoys me because he's the only player England seem to pick without noticing he's not actually done anything. I will state for the last time I have never and will never decide he's crap whatever, why should I? The only thing that is biased at the moment is his record which is biased towards mediocrety...
As for Clarke, again it's weak opposition, even weaker than in the CC, and he hasn't set the world on fire, but I'm not passing judgement because, as I said before, against the world's weakest team, who can?
Oh and my case, can you see it resting over there? Can you? Just over there by the sink. Damn case *Kicks the case, which gets up on it's many legs and manages to look suitably annoyed without possessing a face*
Amazing things these cases.
Rik
Cricketer Of The Year
More accurately the things that matter about bowling, which, if you forget, are about taking wickets at a reasonable average, which Harmison doesn't do. Tell me what else a bowler is supposed to do that makes Harmison a world-class seamer and the glory is yours, but then you won't, you'll just claim everything I've said is rubbish, like allways, because you can't admit your wrong, this once. Just why is it you find the need to disagree so much Marc, is it in your nature or are you having a bad time and feeling the need to take it out on someone?marc71178 said:
Non-arguement? So why are you replying? How come it's only you, Neil and Eddie who feel they have to tell me I'm wrong? 3 People, yes wow, I suppose that gives you the right to not call it an arguement as well as the bottom line? No Marc, it doesn't.
Last edited:
